The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the essential ingredients required for the offence under section 364-A of IPC, as provided by the Supreme Court, and the application of this interpretation to the evidence presented by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT : – This Criminal Appeal under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 2-12-2011 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Sheopur in S.T. No. 02 of 2011 by which the appellants have been convicted for the following offences :

Appellants	Conviction	Sentence
Both Appellants	Under Section 364-A of IPC and 11/13 of MPDVPK Act	Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default 6 months R.I.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 18-5-2010, the complainant Paramsukh, Munesh, Malkhe and Ashok had gone to forest for grazing their cattle. At about 10-11:00 A.M., they were having their meals near Dho Ka Nala. At that time, two unknown miscreants came there and enquired about their names. Both the miscreants, took out country made pistol. The complainant-Paramsukh was directed to go back to his house and the remaining three persons namely, Munesh, Ashok and Malkhe were taken inside the forest after tying their hands. One miscreant took out the mobile from the pocket of Ashok and made a demand of ransom of Rs. 15 lakhs by making a call in the village and a threat was also given that otherwise, they would be sacrificed in Kaladevi. It is also the case of the prosecution, that the miscreants also instructed the abductees to inform their family members about the payment of ransom. Thereafter, all the three abductees were tied with a tree and were beaten. It is alleged that on the next day at about 9 A.M., the abductees were taken near a river and were made to sit by the side of the river. Thereafter, one miscreant went to have bath and one miscreant went to sleep. At that time, it is alleged that all the abductees ran away and came to Police Station Dhodhar and came to Police Station Agra through Police Station Vijaypur. The complainant Paramsukh had lodged the FIR in Police Station Agra. The appellants were arrested. Test Identification Parade was conducted. Another accused Ghanshyam was also arrested. After completing the investigation, police filed the charge-sheet for offence under sections 364-A of Indian Penal Code read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

3. The trial Court by order dated 7-2-2012 framed charges under sections 364-A of Indian Penal Code and under section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

4. The appellants and Ghanshyam abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined Paramsukh (P.W.1), Ashok (P.W.2), Munesh (P.W.3), Malkhan @ Malkhe (P.W.4), Ram Singh (P.W.5), Mahavir Singh Chauhan (P.W.6), Dr. M.C. Vyas (P.W.7), and Avanit Sharma (P.W.8).

6. The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.

7. The trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted Ghanshyam and convicted the appellants for the offences mentioned above.

8. A statement was made by the Counsel for the parties, that no appeal has been filed challenging the acquittal of Ghanshyam.

9. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in jail for the last more than 11 years. The appellants do not wish to challenge the allegations of abduction, but in view of the evidence led by the prosecution, no offence under section 364-A of Indian Penal Code would be made out and at the most, an offence under section 365 of Indian Penal Code would be made out. It is further submitted that the maximum sentence for offence under section 365 of Indian Penal Code is seven years, whereas the appellants are already in jail for more than 11 years. Therefore, they have already undergone the entire jail sentence provided for offence under section 365 of Indian Penal Code.

10. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the trial Court.

11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

12. Since, the allegations of abdu